Commercial Design Public Meeting

This Thursday, March 25 from 6pm-8pm there will be a public meeting at the Town Hall. It will be conducted by Ann Coulter and her company whom the town has consulted to help in developing commercial design standards. I urge all citizens to come and express their opinions on this subject.

I have to confess that I was initially reluctant at the expense for this project. The original cost was approx. $50,000. After some negotiation and narrowing of focus, we were able to decrease that to approx $25,000. I said at the time that I felt the timing was appropriate because I expected new commercial development on the mountain. Frankly, because of the enthusiasm this council has expressed toward expanded commercial development, I expected the proposed grocery store project behind the current shopping center to be approved. If I had known it would be rejected, I would have preferred to wait on this consultation until our finances were more robust. Nonetheless, this meeting is being held and it is important that all citizens have a say in the future of the mountain.

The scope of this project has been somewhat misunderstood. Some have thought that Ms. Coulter would recommend where commercial development would occur on the mountain. However, those proposals were part of the land use plan and are included in that plan. Ms. Coulter will be helping the Design Review Commissiond revise our commercial design standards for appearance of our commercial buildings. This will obviously be of particular interest to owners and tenants of our current buildings and those interested in future developments. However, all citizens should have an interest and a say in these standards and also understand the potential pros and cons of such design standards in the area of expense, limits on renovationst, etc. So please turn out this Thursday and let us know what you think.

Shameless Musical Plug

Mark you calendars for this Sunday, March 7. My acoustic trio, The Orchard Band, featuring Robert and Alice Thatcher (and myself) will be performing at Sweet Gipsy coffee shop from 11am-2pm. So come by after church for lunch or a late breakfast and enjoy an eclectic variety of late '60's/early 70's acoustic music. For those of you who don't know where it is, it is on James Blvd, just north of Thrasher Elementary right at the entrance of the Orchard neighborhood! For directions, go to www.sweetgipsy.com! Y'all come!

zoning request for grocery store

I just returned from the Planning Commission meeting. The PC recommended against rezoning the land behind the shopping center on a 4-2 vote. Cheryl Graham and Van Bunch were absent and Guy Beaty recused himself due to personal connections with the case.

I confess to having been quite surprised by this. The motion to deny was made by Annette Allen and seconded by Bill Lusk. This is particularly surprising considering that this council had been so aggressive in promoting commercial development. Just a year ago there was great enthusiasm by Ms. Allen and Robertson in particular for selling town property for commercial development. I also know that Bill Lusk has recently been buying some commercial property in the town (but not in the shopping center involved). He stated he wanted more time to talk with surrounding neighbors and walk the property even though the request was original presented in, I believe October if memory serves. I'm not sure what more he wanted to learn. He also said he talked with a large number of business owners and has been unable to find any of them who support this. I would be curious to know if any business owners reading this talked with him and what their reasons were for opposing it.

The projected tax benefits to the town from this development are projected to be on the order of $300,000 per year. I certainly agree with concerns about the surrounding property owners potentially affected by this, although only a few would actually be directly affected. Approximately half the property would be preserved as potential open space (I would certainly look for guarantees such as conservation easements for this). Since this area is currently zoned residential, that protection is not guaranteed at present and I'm sure that any potential residential development would try to maximize use of all the property. I'm also just as sure that the property owners will not be content to let the property stay undeveloped and the town cannot prohibit any development on this property.

After hearing the presentation tonight, I would certainly lean towards supporting this rezoning, but would like to look at ways to maximize protection of surrounding property owners, perhaps through wider buffers or berms or other options. I fear that the town is losing one of the only potential sources of new revenues considering the strong opposition to future residential growth and the difficulty of annexation (and the possibility that the state may make annexation even harder). Planning Commission member Wayne Williams made an eloquent statement on this point. Our budgets are getting tighter and the demands are getting greater.

As an example, the sidewalk proposed for James Blvd, while mostly funded with federal tax dollars, will also require about $50,000 in town contributions. Frankly, I begin to wonder if we can afford this. The MACC will require a substantial sum to repair the roof just to get it opened for business again and we need to make some major repairs to the gym roof. We need a new public works building desperately and, should the annexation go through, will probably need to build a new fire station on Shackleford Ridge Road (though we have some money set aside for that).

Folks, it is getting to be time to make some decisions. We all want more services and sidewalks and want to add more parks and preserve our open spaces (certainly things I support), but we are going to need to pay for it. Our revenues from the Hall Income Tax (on investments) have decreased with the problems on Wall Street and property taxes are really about all we have to go on. I fear we are trying to have our cake and eat it, too and I fear that our chickens will soon be coming home to roost (hey, is there a market for mixed metaphors??).

Just completed one of our "agenda" sessions which was quite productive. I was given a preliminary draft of the potential locations for a future sidewalk down James Blvd. I want to begin by correcting an error on my part. I have said several times that my understanding was that we did not have the right-of-way across the street from the Country Club to build a sidewalk, but that is not the case. This preliminary document shows potential locations for a sidewalk on both sides of the street in the town's right of way. While other issues may arise (and apparently the issue of utilities is also pretty much equal on both sides), at present it seems that either side would be feasible. It think it is important that everyone know this. These plans will be available at the public meeting next Wednesday, Feb. 3 from 6-8pm. This is a "drop-in"meeting, so come when you can and stay for as long as you want.

Representatives of the Country Club, including club President Doug Fisher and Mike Feher, the Club's representative to the Council attended. They arrived with a very cooperative attitude and the discussions were mostly polite and open on both sides. There was some heated discussion between Mr. Fisher and Vice-Mayor Robertson over some statements she apparently sent out stating that only a few trees would need to be removed if the sidewalk goes in on the CC side. This seems to be overly optimistic based on new information and she admitted this. Clearly we are all gaining new information all the time (as my mea culpa above indicates). The meeting next Wednesday will be a good opportunity for information and input from the town's citizens to the engineers on this project. This is NOT a Town Council meeting. I have to work and will be unable to attend, but I'm sure the other members will be there to listen. I will receive copies of all comments and engineering advice and will give my own input and questions. I want to say that this should not be a "town vs the Country Club" issue and comments about elitists, etc are totally out of line. Apparently there have been some nasty personal comments made (probably on both "sides") and I hope this will stop. I'm tired of "sides". We need to decide what the town wants (and it seems that most do want to go ahead with the sidewalk) and how best to do it. Clearly we should do this the safest way possible and with the least negative impact on the Country Club. So, if you have advice, please tell us if you want the sidewalk or not and, if you do, how best to build it.

In other news... we approved the contract with EPB. Several of their executives were present and everyone was very relieved and happy that we had come to an agreement that I feel is very positive for the town and which they seem content with. Hopefully we should have EPB fiber-optic cable and internet by the fall (or possibly sooner).

We also discussed some new approaches to our efforts to cut energy use and decrease our carbon "footprint" in keeping with our signing the "Mayor's Agreement on Climate Change" when I was Mayor. We talked about appointing a committee to look at these issues in a more formal and systematic way. The organization (called "ICLEI") promoting this issue have tools for measuring the town's effectiveness in this direction. We are already saving money through these efforts, so this isn't purely a pie in the sky issue. We will be looking for potential members for such a committee and possibly dedicating some staff time the next time we bring a management intern to our town as we have in the past (probably this summer).

Finally, the issue was brought up to change our charter. This was raised by Ms. Robertson. Clearly our charter, approved in 1990 has a few outdated measures (such as authority to have sewers and schools). However, it doesn't require us to have these, so these measure are merely superfluous and doesn't restrict or direct the town in any way. A major focus seems to be on the Mayor position. Clearly this has been a concern for the rest of the Council. When I was Mayor, then-Councilmember Bill Lusk (with the apparent support and encouragement of the rest of the Council) went to our state legislative delegation to change the way Planning Commission members are appointed. This was done without my knowledge. Formerly, the Mayor appointed these members. This was essentially the ONLY specific power that the Mayor had. However, I and I believe all my predecessors have done so with the advice and consent of the rest of the Council, even though that wasn't required by law (as it was with all other boards and commissions). Certainly every appointment I made was done after consulting with all the other council members and were all affirmed with a unanimous vote.

In the interest of democracy I agreed to go along once I found out about this however, if I had known that the law passed by Rep. Floyd and Senator Watson ONLY applied to Signal Mountain and not the rest of the state, I would not have done so. Clearly any changes in our charter (even removing a comma) requires a vote from and the time and attention of the state legislature and therefore I believe should only be done for significant changes. Removing irrelevant or outdated passages without any effect are probably not worth taking up their time. Generally changes in the charter should be recommended by a committee of citizens with much input from the general public and I think if we make any more changes, this is the way it should be done. Among the changes Ms. Robertson seems to want to make are removing references to "the Mayor and Council" on issues such as receiving the oath of office and replacing it with "all Councilmembers". Currently "the Mayor or a majority of the council" can call for special meetings, she wants to make this only "a majority of council" and remove the reference to the Mayor. I don't know what her issue is with the Mayor's position. The others on the council have commented about a "future mayor" (this was when I was Mayor) becoming too powerful! The Mayor of Signal Mountain is elected every two years by a majority of the council! The Mayor is a creature of the Council and obviously, as recent history has shown, would be unwise to oppose or become too independent of the majority of the council if he/she wants to remain Mayor. With all the things that this council and our state legislature has on it plate at present, making these changes does not seem like a good use of their time and I see no reason to pursue them. I did suggest that Ms. Robertson use these suggestions as part of her platform when she runs for re-election in the fall.

I would like to briefly cover the issues involved with the proposed sidewalk down James Blvd. The town received a grant some years ago for this sidewalk, portions of which have already been built from the library out towards Thrasher and from Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church to Maryland. This grant is specific for this stretch of road and cannot be applied elsewhere, so we are basically in a "use it there or lose it" situation.

The first decision for us is whether the sidewalk needs to be built or not. Not building it would mean giving up the rest of the grant, although I have no need to just spend money (even "free" money... and, yes, I know that federal tax dollars are still tax dollars) unless it is needed and wanted. Frankly, I think that the majority opinion at this point, at least from the mail I've received is in favor of building the sidewalk. This will, however involve an investment by the town of $50,000 over and above the amount of the grant, so this decision should be taken carefully.

The second decision involves the technical details of where to put the sidewalk. At present, we have an engineering firm looking at these details. The public meeting planned for Feb. 3 will be an opportunity for the public to review these details and give input to the engineers about what needs to be considered in placing the sidewalk. My understanding is that we have inadequate right of way to place the sidewalk across the street from the country club, but I expect this issue to be answered more formally, through a survey if necessary. There also are issues of utilities, etc.

One side issue involves the "ownership" of the Country Club land. While technically the land is owned by the town and leased to the club, my understanding of the deed is that, if the country club ceases operation the land will revert to the original owners and therefore be available for residential or maybe even commercial development. I don't think that is the best outcome for the town, so I believe it is desirable that the country club remain viable. I have no interest in harming their interests as a business.

The final issue for me involves safety. While the trees the country club planted may not be the best solution and are not a perfect solution, I believe they do a fairly good job of preventing line drive golf balls from endangering pedestrians and vehicles on James. I realize there are controversies about the original approval and planting of the trees, but frankly that is water under the bridge. We are where we are and we have to move forward from here. While I never like the idea of cutting down trees needlessly, I do not see this as an "environmental" issue per se and arguments in that direction are not particularly persuasive. However, back to the issue of safety, I will not be able to support a sidewalk along the Country Club unless the engineers can assure me that pedestrians can walk safely on it. I am sure that if it is built along the country club side, some trees will need to be removed, but I am hopefuly that some solution will be found that will allow a sidewalk to be built safely and still protect the interests of the club. This might involve a fence, a hedge, a net or some similar precaution. These are not necessarily mutually opposite outcomes. However, the devil (as always) will be in the details. I hope that our citizens will keep an open mind and that we do not get into choosing up sides on this issue. Let's try to work together for the best interests of the whole town. This will probably involve compromises by all interested parties, but I think it can be done.

A brief note in case you were planning to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight (Thursday, Jan 21). The developers requesting rezoning of the property behind the shopping center and between Lancaster and Cauthon Way have requested a postponement, so there will be no vote tonight. It is tentatively rescheduled for Feb. 4.

The issue of animal control has obviously raised concerns. I want to address those concerns. First, I want to be clear that my intent and I believe the intent of the council is to use East Ridge as our primary animal control agency (we should get a final word on this very soon). This is a very low-kill shelter, similar to the Humane Education Society we have used in the past. Town Manager Honna Rogers negotiated an arrangement with Cleveland as a back-up, but the numbers of animals sent to shelters from Signal Mountain is so low that I hope it will not be needed. This would only be stray animals picked up whose owners can't be found and only if East Ridge is unavailable. Since we have averaged less than 10 animals a year in this category, I doubt we would need this fall-back. All stray animals delivered to either facility by the town must be held at least 72 hours before adoption or euthanasia.

As to animals surrendered by owners, you would not be required to take these to East Ridge or Cleveland. There are many shelters that will accept such animals. Signal Mountain will no longer pay for this to be done for free, however. You will need to pay a fee wherever you take them. Since animals voluntarily surrendered are not required to be held for 72 hours, I would advise animal owners to do some research before dropping them off. If you find a stray in town, you can contact police dispatch for a free pick-up, but to be honest, I'm not sure if that would fall under the 72 hour rule.

I confess that the arrangement with Cleveland was a surprise to me which I have not personally investigated, but it was always presented as a "last chance" back-up arrangement and we may make similar arrangements with other towns and under those circumstances I support them. We did visit the East Ridge facility and were very impressed with it.

Thank you for all the input and passion. Obviously, the best solution to all of this is for owners to keep their pets under control (ie, follow the leash law) and to be sure they have identification, ideally a microchip id. We have talked in the past with local vets about "volume discounts" or special arrangements for these and if there were a lot of interest in the town, I would certainly support trying to arrange something with our local veterinarians.

I will be reviewing all these arrangements with the town manager try to keep everyone updated on these arrangements. My goal all along has been to provide quality and humane animal control at a reasonable cost to the town. Our current contract with the Humane Education Society, I believe is excessively expensive. If anyone wishes to raise voluntary funds for better arrangements, I will be happy to personally contribute. If anyone has ideas of other facilities we could use, please let us know (we did have talks with McKamey, but they couldn't help us). Thanks again for all the feedback, it helps me do a better job.

I have spent a bit of time on this blog expressing my frustrations with the direction and governing style of the majority on the Town Council. However, in spite of this there are still many wonderful things happening in this town. I recently attended a meeting of the MACC Board. As you know, we have major structural problems with the roof of the MACC and the building is closed for safety issues until these problems can be fixed. I was very pleased that the Council unanimously voiced its support for repairing the building. Our new MACC Director, Barb Storm is working with other town staff to put together the specifications needed to bid out this project. While no decision on funding has been reached, the general discussion has been around using a bond issue. Among the advantages of this approach is that interest rates remain low. Also, I remain hopeful that much of this can be paid for through voluntary contributions rather than a need for any extra tax revenue. A yearly payment on a bond issue would provide a great focus for such contributions and the Friends of MACC are currently stepping up to the plate with great plans for increased fundraising. The enthusiasm of this board is infectious and sure to raise anyone's spirits. Laurie Buchanan has applied for an open position on the board and I expect her to be enthusiastically supported by the Council on Monday. This remains a major bright spot in our town, among many. Our town is a much better place to live because of the enthusiastic volunteerism of its citizens.

In addition, I realize that I go on about our town staff, but with good reason. With the current "snow situation", our staff has again risen to the occasion with employees actually spending the night at the transfer station to be sure that the roads were open for the early morning commute. A recent water pipe break near Alexian brought out our excellent water department working late in the freezing cold to repair this problem. So, next time you see a town employee, give them a hug (or at least a wave!).

From time to time I try to go back to my original "campaign" website to refocus on why I ran for this position. I became a physician because I enjoy helping people and I became a town councilmember for the same reason. I was warned when I ran that I would be deluged with calls demanding various things. I can say that I have never been "deluged" with calls, that nearly all my contacts with our town's citizens (my friends and neighbors) have been respectful and civil and that nothing gives me greater pleasure as a councilmember than to help a fellow citizen steer their way through the bureaucracy. Certainly sometimes the answer I have to bring back is "no", but at least if I can get them an answer I feel I have done a service. Like medicine, government is a service industry and, while we can't be all things to all people, if we lose sight of that fact then we don't deserve to be here. So, in my last year on the council I pledge to refocus on service, continue to do all I can to improve this town, keep our citizens informed about what's going on and hopefully to leave an easier job to whoever may succeed me on the council. Even with the current frustrations and disappointments, it is still a great honor to serve and I will never regret asking for and receiving the trust placed on me by the people of this town.

CORRECTION

CORRECTION! I mentioned our contract with the "Humane Society" in my last blog and referred to them as "HSUS". That acronym is for the Humane Society of the United States. The local organization is called the Humane Education Society. I don't know if they are affiliated in anyway, but I should clarify that our contract is with this local group. Their website is:

www.heschatt.com

I should also state that I have no problems with this organization, wish them well and encourage anyone who so desires to donate to them. However, as a public official with responsibility for your tax dollars it is my responsibility to get the best "bang for the buck" I can and I believe our new arrangements will be much more cost-effective. I appreciate the reader who brought this to my attention so I could clarify and correct it.

I just finished one of our Agenda meetings today. Some good news and some unfortunate news. At our last meeting, we had informally agreed to reappoint 2 members to the Design Review Commission, Chair Greg Goodgame and architect Jay Caughman. Then, at our regular meeting in December, Mayor Lusk stated that since that previous meeting, several more applications had come in and moved to table the resolutions to reappoint them. I protested since there was at least one other opening and another likely opening (which has since occurred due to resignation). I stated that with 3 and probably 4 positions to fill, it made sense to retain our current experienced members (including the chair) and then fill the other two openings with new members. However, the motion to table passed. At today's meeting, it was clear that the decision was already made. Mr. Lusk wasn't present (he is apparently at his beach house in Florida for the holidays), but had sent recommendations for three new members (he wasn't aware the fourth opening had occurred). I again suggested that we retain our two experienced members and appoint two new people. However, my motion to reappoint Greg was defeated for lack of a second (ie, noone else supported it). Jay Caughman was recommended for reappointment along with three others (this will be formalized at our meeting on Monday). I abstained on several of these votes out of protest and not out of any opposition to any specific individual. This is a continuation of the moves by this council to eliminate anyone who has not been in lockstep with them. Most of you will recall that Greg ran for the Council in 2006, coming in 5th. After the 4th place finisher, Lolly Durant removed her name from consideration, Greg offered himself to replace Bob Linehart who had been recalled. Bill Lusk had also applied along with several others. I initially supported Greg for several reasons. He had been attending nearly every council meeting for several years and was very knowledgeable about the issues before the town. (Greg had actually been the person who had suggested to the council that the slow down the SROZ issue, about to be passed in the spring of that year, so that more citizens could become knowledgeable since he know it would be controversial. This allowed the whole "recall" movement to get going). In addition, I had many emails suggesting we should just appoint the next person "in line" from the election, which was Greg after Lolly dropped out. However, after two tied votes between Mr. Lusk and Mr. Goodgame, I decided to change my vote to prevent a divisive and expensive "special election". Greg did remain on the DRC for the next three years, indicating his continued commitment to the town which I appreciated. Nonetheless, he has now been removed in spite of his active participation and interest in continuing on the DRC. I find this continued move to remove anyone who is not a partisan of the council majority (along with Wells Blake just last month) to be highly regrettable and contrary to my own approach to town representation which is to have a diversity of views. Therefore I resigned as the Council liaison to the DRC. I certainly wish them well as we plan to put a lot of work on them in the next few months, but my influence is continuing to be minimized by this council so I can no longer be of any service in that capacity.

In other business, we approved a new cable contract with Comcast which should benefit the town. Hopefully, EPB will now agree to the same terms so that competition can finally come to Signal Mountain. We also agreed to pay Ann Coulter's firm just over $25,000 to conduct a review of our commercial design regulations and the current environment, including conducting a public meeting for input, then work with the DRC to develop new guidelines for future commercial development. While the cost is unpleasant in this fiscal environment, the need is there and the timing is forced on us by the pressure for more commercial development between the proposed Signal Plaza expansion, SMMS and other potential commercial proposals, so I supported it reluctantly. We also approved $727 to fix some playground equipment at Norris Field (on Signal Road).

One very positive element is our animal control situation. As Mayor and a new councilmember, I was astounded to find that we were paying over $36,000 a year to the Humane Society (HSUS) for animal control which has consisted of picking up less than 10 animals per year which had usually already been caught by our police. I pushed hard to develop a new arrangement. We had cancelled our contract with HSUS once, but an agreement we had tentatively worked out with East Ridge fell through, so we went back to HSUS. However now, through the hard work of our Town Manager, Honna Rogers and our Police Chief, Boyd Veal, we should have a new agreement soon using private contractors and the animal shelters of two other towns. This will save the town a LOT of money. The one downside for citizens is that, if you need to "drop off" an unwanted animal at a shelter, you will probably need to pay a fee now, however I do not feel it is the responsibility of the tax payers to pay for this service for individuals.

Well, that's the latest. Please feel free to post comments and your own thoughts. I would love for this to be a multi-way dialogue rather than just a one-way lecture! I hope to hear from you all, soon.

Wow, almost a month since my last blog and so much going on. First, check my new poll out. We recently put up a new sign announcing our monthly meetings. to replace the old black stencil on white sign. This is on the "sign board" on the road up the front of the mountain. Let me know if you like it or not! Now, sit back and relax. This one is kinda long...

On Dec 1 we had one of our monthly "agenda" meetings. We started having these meetings early in my term. We found ourselves having frequent "special meetings" and decided to have one extra meeting for informational purposes and to set the agenda for the upcoming "regular" meeting. These are, however official public town meetings though usually sparsely attended due to being held during the day. The town charter designates the mayor as the "chair" of all town council meetings and during my tenure I conducted these meetings. However, Mayor Lusk has decided to turn these meetings over to the town manager to run. Honna does an excellent job of it, but it has been an interesting and surprising change in the general running of the business of the Council.

Issues discussed at this meeting included several raised by Ms. Allen. As everyone probably knows, it is state law that all bicycle riders under 16 wear helmets and she would like this more aggressively enforced. Apparently, however the maximum fine is only $2. So we are going to take an educational approach. Certainly as an emergency physician I strongly encourage everyone (both under and over 16) to wear helmets when on your bicycle.

She has also raised the issue of charging a monthly fee for extra garbage cans (more than one) to try to encourage recycling and decrease solid waste. Mr. Lusk raised the possibility of a fee of $15-20 per household. Loretta Hopper was asked to study the costs involved and at our Dec 9 regular meeting, she presented some data indicating that the extra costs to the town of those using more than one can to be something less than $10 per year. I certainly urge all citizens to recycle and decrease their solid waste output. However it doesn't appear the cost impact is adequate to justify and extra charge at this point. It has also been pointed out that larger households have more trash and would be penalized. I should remind everyone, though that there are smaller cans than the 96 gallon ones most folks have, so if you have decreased your waste stream, feel free to downsize your trash can.

Good news is that the Council agreed to support repairing the MACC as soon as possible and we passed a resolution at the 12/9 meeting confirming this support. Mr. Lusk raised the idea of a bond issue which might be a reasonable approach with interest rates being so low. This would also allow repairs to begin soon and then efforts to raise private funds could continue to pay down this debt. We are currently putting specs together to get bids on repairs to determine how to move forward.

A major discussion was had over appointments to town boards. As everyone knows, the Planning Commission has become a major source of controversy. Soon after my election (both to the Council and as Mayor), I appointed Melissa Cantrell to the Planning Commission and reappointed Wells Blake, who had served for I believe 6 years at that point. I thought these two provided a diversity of opinions which would benefit the commission. At that time, the appointment process for the Planning Commission was solely in the hands of the mayor by state law, although the town had a history of consultation and consensus with the town council that I followed. Nonetheless, I found out about a year into my tenure that, without my knowledge Mr. Lusk had been working with our legislative delegation to change this law to take this power out of the Mayor's hands and make it a council vote. While I was obviously disturbed by the surreptitious way that this was done, I decided to support this effort in the name of democracy. I later found out that the bill the state passed ONLY applied to Signal Mountain and not to any other city or town. That whole process was frankly disappointing, nonetheless all my appointments were done with the unanimous agreement of the council and all were confirmed by unanimous vote.

At the meeting, when Honna asked if we should reappoint Wells Blake, both Hershel and I said yes. However, the other three councilmembers began raising objections. Annette felt that no one should be appointed to the Planning Commission who has any even peripheral connections with the building industry. Mr. Blake works as an appraiser, as did Reid Sisson when initially appointed though he has since changed jobs. This approach would also exclude Wayne Williams, an architect and an excellent, hard working PC member. While I do not think that the PC should be dominated by development interests, I certainly think they should be represented. Ms. Robertson then specifically accused Mr. Blake of "shmoozing" with developers after the meetings to get business and specifically accused him of conflict of interest. I found this accusation to be outrageous and told her so. Ironically, since Mr. Blake is contracted by banks and lenders, if he were "shmoozing" developers it would do him no good since they don't hire him. I think this approach and attitude is not in keeping with a diverse viewpoint on the PC and can only assume it is a part of a continued attempt to "stack the deck" towards a very narrow viewpoint. Unfortunately, Mr. Dick raised no objections and, while no formal vote was taken, Mr. Blake's name was taken out of nomination for reappointment. His experience, which is greater than anyone else on the PC will be missed. No replacement for him was decided on at that time.

This brings me back to the topic of Ms. Cantrell. As I said, I appointed her to the PC 3 years ago. However, I can know longer support her and voted against her reappointment. Some of you may know of her personal insults to me. While personal honor may seem an old-fashioned and quaint concept in the 21st century, it is important to me and her private attacks on my integrity are adequate reason for me to oppose her. However, I have other concerns. The email to which I am referring is reproduced below:

"From: "Missy"
To: ,"Susan Robertson" ,"Racie" ,"Annette Allen" ,"mary seay" ,"teresa Hon" ,,"Dr. Joe Dumas" ,,,"Annie Morrow"
Subject: town business
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:18:49 +0000


This appears to be Mr. Hendricks' final word on this issue. It seems a lot less damning, and from what I can tell, a lot more truthful than what he has been sending out in the past on the subject. Please feel free to send this out to as many people as you can tomorrow as this appears to be Mr. Hendricks lastest word on the subject.

Thank you,

Missy"

This exchange was about my opposition to the proposal to sell town ballfields for commercial development. Frankly, I'm not sure what I said that was "more truthful" and, in spite of asking her, have no idea what was more "damning" and less "truthful". She has never explained it or apologized for it. However, more importantly it is obvious that this email was meant not only for private friends, but for select members of the town council and planning commission about a topic that undoubtedly would have been discussed and debated by the PC if it had gone forward. As such, it appears to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the open meetings law. This also raises my concern that this isn't the only such private email on public topics. In addition, I have had complaints from PC members about her obvious personal bias against certain landowners regardless of their specific plans. She also refused to delay for one month a vote on the SROZ repeal, a topic obviously of no urgent importance when requested by a landowner who couldn't attend that particular month. This was an unnecessary rudeness to this landowner who has been a very active participant in our town's business. Possibly it is because one member who would likely have voted against her was out of town that month. Since the vote was 4-3 it appears she does know what it takes to get a vote to go her way. I think these are adequate reasons to oppose her reappointment even without considering the personal attacks.

Finally, a comment on my political future. In my last blog, I mentioned that I didn't plan to run for re-election. While I thought this was common knowledge, the Chattanoogan.com found it newsworthy:

http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_164262.asp

I found the first sentence interesting. For the record, when I informed the Council before the election that I would like to continue for 2 more years as mayor, I also informed them that it was highly unlikely I would run for re-election. The Chattanoogan.com made no attempt to contact or interview me for this article so their attempt to link my decision with the mayor race is an unfortunate and erroneous assumption. I truly love serving the Town of Signal Mountain and do not rule out asking for another term some time in the future when my children are grown, but at this time I feel I have asked enough from my family and medical partners and feel I need to put my energies elsewhere. However, I have one more year to go, so don't give up on me yet!

Finally (whew), Merry Christmas to all and a very Happy and Healthy New Year!

In my medical career I have frequently felt that some of my best decisions were to NOT do something. Sometimes, especially in an emergency there is a temptation to just do something, anything... but sometimes the best thing is to just stand there! Some problems resolve themselves, sometimes the initial impulse is not the right one and sometimes one has to take time to think to do the right thing.

Some of our recent Town Council decisions fit into this same rubric. My initial response to the speed camera proposal was negative. However, I have great respect for our police chief and his advice and wanted to evalute them further and also seek the input of our citizens. My research only reinforced my initial instincts and I am glad we are not moving forward with this. Although there was initially much enthusiasm among some on the council, clearly public opinion took its toll. While we don't always have to make an active decision not to do something, I thought this was a time when we should make that statement and made the motion to not move forward with this idea. I'm glad it was accepted and passed.

The same applies to raising the sales tax. Obviously we can always use more money, but at this time with the economy only just starting to recover and many of our businesses struggling, this would not be the right thing to do.

Bill Lusk has raised several other proposals recently which we have decided not to pursue. He asked the town to research curfews for youth. I did some research and found evidence that they didn't seem to work. Chief Veal agreed that the problem didn't warrant the solution. I'm glad we are not moving forward on that proposal.

Mr. Lusk has also raised the idea of a "dog park". I have owned dogs almost my entire life. I currently have two. I stand behind noone in my love for dogs. However, I don't see this as a pressing need in our community. Mrs. Robertson stated that we didn't plan to spend tax money on this and it would only be done if it was run by volunteers. Since we have never discussed any of this I'm not sure just what she meant. She may have just been expressing her own opinion, but she did say "we". If she is having these discussions with the rest of the Council in non-public meetings, it is a violation of the public meeting law and that would be unfortunate. Obviously, if someone wants to buy some land and create a dog park with volunteers I would say more power to them, but since this was brought up as a town effort, it would clearly involve tax dollars even if volunteers agreed to "scoop the poop". I think there are much more important issues for us to address and greater needs for our tax dollars at present.

While those that know me as a liberal might be surprised, I am a believer in the principle that government which governs least governs best. It is a classic liberal principle to keep government out of people's lives as much as possible. I do believe government has a role to play in public safety and can do much to improve people's lives, but was never interested in just looking for things I could meddle in. We have way too many needs in this town to be creating more.

As I enter my last year in office (and no, I do not plan to run for re-election), I hope to see a few things finished that we started. I wanted to re-write some of our ordinances to make them clearer and began re-organizing our whole board and commissions structure. Honna has taken my initial work, improved it and the Council will hopefully be passing this re-write in December. I hope to see the Planning Commission and Council complete work on re-doing our subdivision and zoning regulations before I leave, but considering how long it is taking, I am not optimistic. Considering that I have been totally sidelined on this issue anyway, it probably doesn't matter.
I am please with many of the environmental initiatives we have begun. These have not been just "feel good" initiatives, but actions such as replacing lighting fixtures with more energy efficient ones and replacing light bulbs with compact fluorescents will save the town money while cutting down our carbon emissions. I am proud of that. I'll deal with a few other outstanding issues over the next few months.

Speaking of elections, the town council elections are a year off! We were criticized last year for not publicizing them more broadly and some thought this is why noone ran against the incumbents. Clearly there will be at least one open seat next fall, mine. Hershel was talking about running for re-election last I heard from him, but I honestly don't know what his final decision will be. I also don't know what Susan Robertson, who is also up for re-election will do, though I would be surprised if she didn't run. I would urge anyone who has considered serving in town government to think seriously about running. It is a great service to your community and a great experience. I'm happy to talk with anyone considering this. Deadlines for "signing up" aren't until next August, but elections up here have gotten a lot more serious lately, so it is best to do some advance planning. Give it a try!

A few issues in the news...

I wanted to comment on a few issues currently in the news. We had our monthly agenda/work session last Monday and several of these were discussed.

On the topic of "speed cameras", I have previously stated my opposition. I just don't think we need them on Signal Mountain right now, although I support our police chief and his efforts to enforce our laws. It seemed apparent to me that Hershel Dick also opposed these and he expressed this in the meeting. The other three Councilmembers had seemed fairly supportive of the idea, however Bill Lusk stated that after further research he was now leaning against them. I suggested that we should formally make a statement that we would not be moving forward on this issue. The other two (Ms. Allen and Robertson) expressed no opposition, so I suspect this is a dead issue and will be formally dropped.

Mr. Lusk has also raised the issue of curfews for minors. We have had some problems with vandalism in some of our parks and apparently he had been asked by citizens to consider this option. Many cities have adopted these and, while the cities claim they decrease crime, at least one independent study that I found did not support this. Mr. Lusk had asked Chief Veal to research this and, while Chief Veal stated it would give the police more flexibility, he didn't seem to think it would help that much. I have my own concerns that the primary effect would be to hassle law abiding minors returning late from dates, etc without significantly impacting the few problems we have. I did tell the Chief that I supported the idea of the police contacting parents of minors found out late at night. I think that sort of notification is the best approach to this issue. The general consensus seemed to be that this was a solution in search of a problem and that we shouldn't pursue it.

In the paper today is an article about dog parks. This is another issue Mr. Lusk has raised for the town staff to research. I have never heard anyone raise this issue before. I don't see this as a need for this town and in the current fiscal situation could not support any money being put towards this kind of a project. I can certainly see the need in cities where many people live in apartments with pets, but in a town where the council continues to prefer to require that citizens have large yards it doesn't seem necessary.

The staff has suggested we consider a referendum on raising the sales tax. Our current tax rate is 9.25% with the highest allowable rate in Tennessee being 9.75%. The concern raised was that the state legislature might consider raising this tax statewide to raise revenue and, in that case Signal Mountain would lose significant funds unless we raised it ourselves first. However, it has also been pointed out that next year is an election year and, with a state legislature controlled by taxophobic Republicans, it seems likely they would look for more subtle ways to raise revenue. It seems unlikely we will be pursuing this anytime soon. Certainly the town could use additional funds for capital projects and this is the case that would have to be made. However, while the recession seems to be over the the economy starting to slowly recover, it doesn't seem like an ideal time to raise this tax.

As many of you may know, the MACC is having major ceiling and roof problems. Raccoons have nested in the ceiling for years and their, shall I say "items left behind" have led to deterioration of the ceilings. This building originally had plaster ceilings. When the ceilings began to crack, apparently the school board covered them with drop ceilings as a cosmetic fix. However, the damage is such that the plaster ceilings are now beginning to fall through and the roof has leaks in it, too. Parts of the roof have been repaired in the past and some areas such as the "portable" metal buildings and the cafeteria area are still usable, however it would be foolish to repair the ceiling without repairing the roof, so this has turned into a major project. We are currently in the process of collecting bids and proposals, so I will have more info later. The MACC board has been very active and supportive of this effort as has the Friends of MACC. We will certainly be seeking any grants available for this historic building and if any of you have ever considered contributing to the MACC through Friends of MACC, this is the time to do it. I want to thank Barb Storm new MACC director for her leadership in taking on a project which was not apparent when she took the job!

Finally, my personal congratulations to the Signal Mountain High School Girl's Golf Team on winning the State Championship and to the SMMS Varsity Football team for making the play-offs! Go Eagles!

I was very proud of the citizens of Signal Mountain Monday night. We had at least 2 very contentious issues. The meeting was well attended. Everyone was polite and spoke to the issues without any personal attacks. Obviously, the big issue was that of traffic control cameras. Bill Kroski of American Traffic Solutions presented the technical details on these systems. Obviously, as owner of the company he was making a sales pitch and painted a very positive picture (pun intended) of the cameras. He answered questions and tried to dispell concerns. Next, the citizens got their chance to speak. It is probably no surprise that the overwhelming majority of comments were in opposition to this proposal. However, again everyone who spoke did so in an appropriate manner, respecting the decorum of the meeting and also respecting the 3 minute time limit, intended to give everyone a chance to speak.

I must say that I am not opposed to these systems in general. There are positive reports of increased safety in larger cities and paticularly dangerous stretches of highway. However, I don't think the citizens of Signal Mountain are ready for them and I would prefer to look to other alternatives for controlling our speeding problem. I have great respect for our police force and our Police Chief, Boyd Veal. He became aware of a problem and presented a potential solution. That is his job and I appreciate it very much. I do not think our speed limits are too low. I believe Taft Highway is our only multi-lane road and since its extent in our town limits is nearly all either residential or crowded commercial, I could not support increasing it. I know that some have suggested we increase the speed limit past the traffic light going down the mountain. This has been the site of most of our fatal accidents. Since many drivers "pad" the speed limit by 5-10 MPH anyway, Chief Veal showed earlier that lowering the limit to 35 succeeded in lowering the average speed to 40MPH. I think this is fine for this steep downhill stretch and personally I find that, by downshifting and occasionally tapping my brakes I can keep my speed at 35 without problem.

Our next potentially contentious issue was a proposed increase in the sales tax. Currently, our total sales tax is 9.25% with the potential to go up to a total of 9.75%. The state is actively pursuing opportunities to increase revenues and if they raise the state tax, we will only receive back a very tiny portion in shared revenue. However, if we raise it ourselves first, we will be able to retain the entire portion for local projects. Obviously, this is being presented as a defensive measure depending on what we think the state might do. However, it would benefit the town at a time when we have several capital infrastructure needs including the need for a new public works building, repairs to the Town Hall and the MACC. There is a legitimate concern as to whether this would put our local merchants at a disadvantage, although frankly the gas to drive off the mountain would cost more than the few cents saved (tax would mean an extra 50 cents on every $100 spent in town). Ultimately, the only way for this to go into effect would be by a townwide referendum which I suspect will be presented in the late winter or early spring so you'll hear more about this.

Many of you probably know that we have a grant for sidewalks on James Blvd. They have already been put in from Thrasher to the library and the next phase is from the library to Timberlinks. The grant is very specific and can only be used for this purpose in this location.
For reasons of right of way and infrastructure, it seems the best place to put this would be on the Country Club side. Representatives of the Club were present to raise concerns about safety which have also concerned me. The leland cyprus trees were planted along there for this reason, but at least some of these will have to come down to build the sidewalk. We approved an engineering study for the sidewalk which should address the safety concerns. At that point we will have to see what measures will have to be taken so that people casually strolling down the sidewalk will not have to risk injury from errant golf balls.

Finally, the really important and exciting news was giving authority to the mayor to sign the deed transfer for the MACC. After 10 years of leasing the building, it is about to become the property of the citizens of Signal Mountain. As an old and historic building, it has many needs including the urgent need to clean out years of debris due to racoons nesting in the attic! However, ownership opens up many new opportunities for grants. I think this is great news for the town and enjoy my relationship with the MACC board as its liaison. This is a great group of individuals working hard, along with Friends of MACC to preserve this treasure.

As always, let me hear from you on these important issues.

We had a council work/agenda session yesterday. This served to reinforce a decision I made last summer. After the repeal of the SROZ, I decided that I no longer had any effectiveness in that area and that I had been totally marginalized on issues of land-use, so I felt I should put my energies elsewhere. After the recent meeting with Randall Arendt, I allowed myself to get excited again. While the Council and Planning Commission continue to claim to move towards conservation and open space design, I have felt their approach was too confrontational and therefore counterproductive. I ran pledging to try to bring people together to work cooperatively. However, I have seen an unfortunate move in the opposite direction.

From my previous post, you know that opposition has arisen to Mr. Arendt's offer to do a "pilot project" conservation subdivision design on a local piece of property. I had hoped that if the Planning Commission continued to be interested in this proposal, that the Council might support it. However, the meeting yesterday made it clear that there is minimal to no support on the Council. As a matter of fact, I was surprised that this proposal was perceived by the rest of the Council as a gift to the participating landowner and that Mr. Arendt's presentation to us was seen as self-promoting and more about selling himself to the developers than about helping the town. I tried to explain that I felt his emphasis on the economic benefits of conservation design was an attempt to show the landowners and developers present the advantages of using these designs. The response from the Council was that we didn't need to show any benefits, that the Council had the power to impose these regulations and the landowners would just have to accept it. This was a far cry from the cooperative atmosphere with which we started this process and I see no future in my continuing to waste any energy in this area. I never wanted this to be about cramming these ideas down any one's throats, no matter how strongly I supported them, but about creating processes which were mutually beneficial.

It is ironic that I occasionally wonder if I should have taken Mayor Lusk's offer to remain on the Planning Commission. When he told me he planned to oppose me for mayor, I told him that being on the Planning Commission was one of the reasons I would like to remain mayor through the completion of my term. This was because we were still in the middle of this process and I truly wanted to see it through. He replied that he didn't realize that the mayor served on the Planning Commission, that he was already too busy and didn't have time to do it and that I could continue on the Planning Commission. I told him that I thought it important that the mayor perform this important duty and that I didn't think I could honestly represent anyone who had opposed me for mayor or a council which had rejected me.

So, while I still hope the Planning Commission will discuss and consider Mr. Arendt's offer, I don't see much hope of the Council accepting it regardless. I think this is an unfortunate missed opportunity. At this point I think I just need to wash my hands of the issue.

In other business yesterday, there seems to be strong support on the Council for adding so-called "speed cameras" to the town. There are certainly arguments in favor of them, but there is also strong opposition in the town from all I've seen. I am trying to continue to keep an open mind, gather information and input from citizens, so let me know how you feel!

The Council will probably put a referendum on a ballot for early next year to add 1/2 cent to the sales tax. There is a strong feeling that the state will add this tax on state-wide and if we do it ourselves, we will retain a much larger portion of the tax. So it is probably not if, but when and how. Obviously the decision will ultimately be up to the citizens via the referendum.

EPB made a presentation in requesting a franchise agreement to begin offering their fiber-optic internet/tv/phone services. Once the contract is tweaked a bit I'm sure this will pass and they think they will have service up here by the first of the year adding another option for these services for our citizens.

In follow up to my previous post on Randall Arendt's offer to do a "model" conservation zoning plan on some local property, I have since found out that at least 2 Councilmembers (Allen and Robertson) have notified Mr. Arendt that they oppose this idea and especially paying anything for it (probably about $2000). I am disappointed about this and especially the fact that neither member raised any particular opposition to this proposal at the Planning Commission meeting (other than some vague comments about making sure it was done legally). I am also concerned that the initial communications to Mr. Arendt and to the landowners who volunteered their property were done without any discussion with the Planning Commission or Council and were communicated in such a way to imply that the offer was rejected. Ms. Allen has since clarified that she was expressing her personal opinion and not speaking for the Council. My opinion is that this offer was made at a Planning Commission meeting to the Planning Commission, not to the Council. It did not originate with a landowner, although the landowners present were enthusiastic about the idea. It was my impression (considering the discussion was all very positive and noone spoke against the idea) that there was broad consensus on accepting this offer. The Chair of the Planning Commission (Melissa Cantrell) has since pointed out that she neglected to take a formal vote on this proposal. I find it unfortunate and a poor reflection on the town to first accept a very generous offer from our major consultant on this issue and at least 2 major landowners in public, then to reject it in private. I urge the Planning Commission to take a formal vote on this proposal at its next meeting on October 8 and obviously would urge them to accept it. I think this would be the proper process. The Town Council would then have to consider providing the funds for this project, but after 3 years of drawing out this process of re-writing our subdivision regulations and zoning laws (which they haven't even been started yet), we have spent very little money and I feel that a few thousand dollars to accelerate and complete this project would be well worth it. I would certainly hope that if the Planning Commission asked for this project, the Council would support and approve that request. If the Planning Commission members reject it, then that is their decision and I will accept it.

I hope, too that in the future Councilmembers will remember that they are public officials bound by the Open Meetings laws and that discussions and decisions of this sort should NOT be conducted in private. It was obvious from emails and proposals presented and shared with some and not other Councilmembers that "back-channel" communications continue on this Council which I find highly objectionable. Also, Councilmembers should be very careful in communicating with citizens and consultants that they are only expressing their own personal opinions, which is appropriate vs. speaking for the Council which is not appropriate. Decisions by the Council can only be made in public meetings.

Interesting local discussion I found:

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2009/09/libertarians-on.html

I always found it a bit interesting that some of our local libertarian friends supported stricter land use regulations.

This morning, the Planning Commission met with Randall Arendt for discussion about conservation zoning. Hard to summarize a two hour discussion, but the interesting idea that came out was to consider doing a "model" conservation zoning plan on some local property so folks could see what it really looked like. The other advantage of this and a main reason for considering it was to use such a demonstration to actually advise the Planning Commission on what regulations are reasonable and doable. This would mean shaping regulations around a real life situation rather than creating regs in a vacuum and then trying to form reality around them. I found this very intriguing and exciting and hope that it works.

As you see, I have added a new poll, so please let me know what you think. Also, if you are interested in commenting on my blogs, here is a quick "primer": At the bottom of my posting there is a link called comments. Click on that and it will take you to a page with a place to write your own comments. After you do that, just below there you have to click on one of four "buttons". The first two use existing accounts which, if you have them you probably know how to use them. The last two buttons have a place to leave your name and website if you have one. Then there is a button for "anonymous" I really hope that anyone who comments will be willing to attach your own name to your comment, but you can use the anonymous option if you so desire. I hope to hear from folks on these important issues.

I thought I would comment briefly on the "speed camera" proposal before the Town Council. For those of you who missed it, Police Chief Veal presented data to the Town Council at our recent meeting indicating that we have a large amount of speeding in our town. While much of this is in the 1-10mph over the limit area, there is still a significant amount of speeding which is more than 10mph over the limit. I have heard much complaining about speeding, especially in neighborhoods and certainly this is a serious issue that must be addressed. He has proposed the idea of using cameras to photograph speeding cars with citations then mailed out based on license tags.

I freely confess to mixed feelings on this issue. I certainly do not accept speeding. I have seen the consequences in my ER work and it is not pretty. Certainly we have a very safe town and don't seem to have a large number of major accidents, but prevention is the best cure. I will say that I do not accept the notion presented by some that, if so many people are speeding then the speed limits are too low. Speed limits should be set based on safety not based on what the prevailing speed is on our roads. In addition, even though some roads, such as Taft Highway are admittedly wide and probably designed for higher speeds, nearly our entire town is residential. Taft Highway runs mostly through residential areas. I frequently see young kids walking along Taft going to and from the pool and other recreational activities so I do not agree that we should have a higher speed on this road. Shackleford Ridge is another problem area and, between the narrowness and windiness of the road and the proximity of schools, I don't think the speed limit should be raised there either.

I also want to say that I have great respect for our police force and especially for Chief Veal. Whatever I decide to do on this issue, I know that Chief Veal's only motivation is the safety of our citizens and his officers and that is why I support him and think so highly of him. There are dangers associated with traffic stops to police officers and drivers, especially on some of our roads where the shoulders are narrow or non-existent. I realize we could free up officers to patrol neighborhoods and focus on protecting our local businesses.

So, if the argument against cameras is to allow more speeding by increasing the speed limits or decreasing enforcement, I reject that argument.

However, I confess to reservations. I admit that the idea of speed cameras is somewhat big brother-ish and downright creepy to me. I have concerns about reliability. I have questions about the citation issuance process and want to understand more about that. I realize that, having fixed cameras could lead to improved speeds only in the vicinity of those poles. I have heard complaints that these cameras cause more accidents and have asked Noah Long to provide me the sources confirming these concerns (and would encourage any others with concerns and especially with specific facts to forward them to me). The goal of speed enforcement is to improve safety and, I agree that we should look at some accident data.

So, in short I am keeping an open mind on this and hope to hear more from citizens about how they feel and any specific concerns they have. I hope the council will take a bit of time to deliberate this issue very carefully and listen to all sides.

In case you don't read beyond this first sentence, I want to announce that The Orchard Band, my acoustic trio with Robert and Alice Thatcher will be performing tomorrow, Monday, Sept. 7, 2009 at the Lion's Club Picnic at Althaus Park behind the Country Club. We will start around 12:30 or maybe just after and play, probably until we run out of songs! I hope everyone can come out, eat some BBQ, buy a raffle ticket for a new car and listen to some classic acoustic folk/rock'n'roll! Y'all Come!

Back to Signal Mountain politics, there's obviously been a lot lately. I think I have covered the dreaded SROZ issue to death, but have just learned that the Planning Commission is trying to get some time with Randall Arendt this month when he comes to town for some work with the RPA. While the budget is tight this year, the cost will apparently be fairly low and worth it. I will want to know exactly what the Planning Commission wants to accomplish for our money. He apparently only has a couple of hours to spare, so I don't think a jawboning session is appropriate. Perhaps a review of the work they've done already on the subdivision regs and how they will interface with whatever zoning regulations they plan to recommend to the Council would be appropriate. Perhaps some counseling on how to work productively with landowners would be useful. Frankly, once they are all done with their work (if I am still on the council at that time) I would like to propose we ask him for a formal review and critique. There has been some talk from the PC that Mr. Arendt's zoning techniques might not be appropriate for Signal Mountain. Obviously, since I ran supporting these priniciples (even before I had ever heard of Mr. Arendt) and since we brought him in as a major consultant and have used his principles to guide the process up until now, I would find a move away from them to be very disappointing. I continue to support conservation zoning as, not only an option but the primary method of zoning in Signal Mountain.

On a personal note, in case you hear anything of a feud between myself and the chair of the Planning Commission, Melissa Cantrell, let me clarify the issue. I appointed Ms. Cantrell to the Planning Commission. While she didn't seem to really understand the principles I was proposing, I had thought she was bright and would learn. The recent actions of the PC (led by her) have disappointed me in that direction (not about her brightness, but about her willingness to learn). However, the source of my personal disappointment with her comes from an email she sent out earlier this year to some of her friends (including Councilmembers) regarding the proposed sale of the town ballfields for commercial development which I opposed. In it she accused me of being "untruthful" (her actual words was that a statement I made was "a lot less damning and, from what I can tell, a lot more truthful than" what I had previously stated on the subject). I frankly found this to be a personal attack on my character and challenged her to produce an example of any lying on my part. She was unable to do so and only made a vague statement about how "people talk around here". I still expect an apology and have yet to receive one.

Sorry to get into personal issues, but interactions between public officials about public issues I feel should be brought to light. I have always endeavored to be open and honest about my opinions and positions. If you want to know what I think, just ask me. You'll pardon me for being too dramatic, but if I can tell someone they have cancer, or that their father/mother/spouse or child has just died in the emergency room, it should be clear that I don't have any problem telling someone that I disagree with their political positions or business plans. To be accused of lying behind people's backs is antithetical to my character and honor and I take great umbrage at this sort of personal attack. The whole recall incident (of which Ms. Cantrell was a part) was unfortunate not because of disagreements over policy, but because of personal attacks and accusations about individuals. I told that group so at the beginning, that while I had great sympathy and agreement with their basic concerns about density and proper land use planning, that their tactic of pursuing a recall was personal, vindictive and would distract from the basic issue at hand, zoning. I still feel I was right about this.

My issue with the whole question of selling town property wasn't the proposal itself. Anyone can propose whatever they want and we'll decide what to do. It was the hypocrisy and manner in which it was presented. Former PC chairman Dan Saieed was attacked viciously over meetings he held with landowners to get an idea of their preferences for development. Because of the private business nature of those meetings, he held them in private. However, he announced them in advance and made sure that our town attorney was present. He then presented the preferences to the PC and the public, but in a way that protected individual business plans. It should be noted that those proposals were not adopted. When Mr. Saieed's term on the PC was up, he considered asking for reappointment, but wanted to know if he had the support of the Council. When I asked them, they attacked him in a manner that I found surprising since they had spoken very highly of him in public. Bill Lusk had obtained the email files of all the previous Councilmembers and Planning Commission from our email server (these are public documents, after all) and suggested that I read them to find all the heinous things they said he had done, including these meetings. After some soul-searching, I decided to do a brief review of some of these communications (I had a hard time justifying the amount of time required, but considering the implication of unethical behavior, I thought it was important) and was frankly unable to found anything I found to be unacceptable. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to find references to early recommendations by Mr. Saieed to bring in Randall Arendt for advice and also to how impressed Mr. Saieed was with Annette Allen's presentations to the PC and that he was strongly recommending getting her involved with the PC for help with the Land Use Review). When I communicated this back to the Council and asked for examples of what they found so objectionable, I never received even the courtesy of a reply. Regrettably, I had to inform Mr. Saieed that, while he had my support he did not have the support of the Council and he withdrew his request. He now serves the town very honorably as an active member of the Lion's Club and his long years of service to our town are, in my opinion, unblemished by any unethical or inappropriate behavior.

After this incident, however when it was proposed that we meet individually and privately with commercial developers about plans to buy town property for private commercial development I was frankly flabbergasted. This was accepted with great enthusiasm by the very people who had attacked Mr. Saieed for doing something similar. However, we met without advance public notice and without benefit of legal council or anyone else in attendance for a witness about what was said or privately agreed to. I found this highly objectionable. That's the honest truth and if there is anything "untruthful" in that, I wait to have it pointed out to me. I have no reason to think that anyone on the council did anything other than what I did, listen to the proposal and then tell them that any further discussions would have to be in public and with the full participation of the community and I would be guided by that input. Any implications to the contrary are not from me. It did seem to me that the fact that the developers moved ahead and made a formal proposal to the town indicated they had received some encouragement. However, the acceptability of this process by this Council after the attacks on Mr. Saieed continues to astound me. These sorts of incidents are a major source of my disappointment with the current council. And that's the truth.